§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself: Rav Anan says thatShmuelsays : With regard to a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship, it is permitted to eat from what he slaughters, as we found with regard to Jehoshaphat , king of Judea, who partook of the feastprepared by Ahab , king of Israel, who was a transgressor with regard to idol worship, as it is stated: “ A nd Ahab slaughtered sheep and cattle for him in abundance, and for the people that were with him, and incited him to go up with him to Ramoth Gilead ” (II Chronicles 18: 2).

Besides the proof Rav Anan / Shmuel himself brings from the verse, which is sustained, the gemara suggests two other proofs. One is from a statement of Rav Yehuda citing Rav that ravens brought Eliyahu (in hiding) meat from the kitchen of Achav. This would form a strong pair of Rav and Shmuel in accord, but the gemara pushes off the proof. The other is an ambiguous brayta in which the seifa speaks of a mumar who is different than the mumar for all mitzvot as well as one who is a mumar to circumcision. Since this other mumar could either be Rava's mumar (namely, to that same mitzvah of consuming kosher meat) or Shmuel's mumar (to idolatry), this is ambiguous and cannot form a definitive proof to either Rava or Shmuel.

Then, the gemara brings a conclusive refutation to Rav Anan from a brayta. On Chullin 5a:

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Anan from that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “ W hen any man of you brings an offering unto the Lord, from the animal” (Leviticus 1:2) . The tanna infers:“ O f you, ” indicating: But not all of you. This serves to exclude the transgressor, from whom an offering is not accepted. The tanna continues: The term“ of you” is also interpreted to mean that I distinguished among you and not among the nations. Therefore, a gentile may bring an offering even if he is an idol worshipper. The expression“ from the animal” serves to include people who are similar to an animal in that they do not recognize God. From here, the Sages stated: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors so that they will consequently repent, except for the transgressor, one who pours wine as a libation to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public [befarhesya].

Thisbaraita itself is difficult. Initially, you said : “ Of you, ” indicating: But not all of you. This serves to exclude the transgressor, from whom an offering is not accepted. And then the tanna teaches: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors.

הא לא קשיא רישא משומד לכל התורה כולה מציעתא משומד לדבר אחד

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The first clause states that an offering is not accepted from a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah. The middle clause states that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.

The Gemara challenges: Say the last clause: Except for the transgressor, and one who pours wine as a libation to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public. With regard to this transgressor in the last clause, what are the circumstances? If the reference is to a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, that is identical to the first clause: Of you, and not all of you, to exclude the transgressor. And if the reference is to a transgressor with regard to one matter, the middle clause is difficult, as it is stated there that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.

Rather, is it not that this is what the mishna is saying in the last clause: Except for the transgressor to pour wine as a libation to idolatry or to desecrate Shabbat in public? Apparently, a transgressor with regard to idol worship is a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, andthis baraita is a refutation of the opinion of Rav Anan . The Gemara concludes: It is indeed a conclusive refutation.

I find this refutation less than compelling, and wish to offer a fairly strong rejoinder on behalf of Rav Anan. Actually, this is a rejoinder on behalf of the first generation Amora Shmuel, who is no slouch, and quite possibly was aware of the brayta. Amar lecha Shmuel... Here is what Shmuel would say to you... (The girsa has either meshumad or mumar. I am running with mumar throughout.)

Before you go about contrasting the mumar of the reisha with the poshei yisrael of the metziata, why don't you contrast the mumar of the reisha with the benei adam shedomin le-beheima of the reisha? Obviously they are different, and the benei adam shedomin leveheima of the reisha is a mumar ledavar echad, which is then equivalent to the poshei yisrael of the metziata. So that is established.

Then, what is your question regarding the seifa? That the mumarof the seifa is an apparent duplication of the mumar of the reisha?! And since this cannot be, we must reinterpret / reread the seifa of mumar or libator or public Shabbat transgressor to instead be a mumar in terms of libating or public Shabbat transgressing?!

If it is indeed so, that you cannot have reduplication and repetition in the brayta, then you need to go and reinterpret either poshei yisrael of the metziata or the benei adam shedomin leveheima of the reisha!

In fact, you should not reinterpret any of these. The brayta employed a joining phrase, between the reisha and the metziata as follows:

מכאן אמרו From here,the Sages stated:

That is, the derivation from pesukim appears in the reisha. And from there, we have (in the metizata and the seifa) the application. Mikem == mumar + the other two categories. Min Habeheima = poshei yisrael who are domin leveheima.

Where the brayta explicitly connects the two, with the end part being the straightforward application of the first part, it is eminently reasonable to see overlap between the reisha and the seifa. Just because the setama degemara wants to kvetch the text of the brayta and darshen it in the way it does does not mean that there is a refutation to the position of Shmuel, which has a Biblical proof, which seems to accord with Rav and which is consistent with a brayta.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

In today's daf (Zevachim 40) we encounter a "derasha chain". That is, a brayta (a Tannaitic source) describes how Rabbi Shimon interprets a verse, and Rabbi Yehuda pointedly says such a derivation is not necessary.

The setama digemara then interjects. What then does Rabbi Yehuda deduce from the superfluous verse? And how does Rabbi Shimon derive the same? And what does Rabbi Yehuda do with the verse that Rabbi Shimon then uses? And so on and so forth. It ends with an extra dangling word asher, which Rabbi Yehuda uses and Rabbi Shimon does not bother with.

This is a common pattern of "derasha chain" in the setam

a digemara. It is well grounded in the assumption (see e.g. Sanhedrin 34) that each verse, or word, or letter, must be systematically used and deduced. There must be a one-to-one mapping from each source text to each deduced halacha. You cannot have either a superfluous verse or a superfluous halacha. The common end result of such a derasha chain is that there is a superfluous word, and one of the pair does not bother interpreting it, not deeming it to be a matter of importance. Another common end result is that the pair is said to differ in another law, such that one of the pair utilizes that final dangling derasha for that purpose.

That is, Rabbenu Tam notes that in Menachot 43a, Rabbi Shimon derives one point of law from the phrase אשר תכסה, and another point of law from just the word אשר. Yet in our perek, we see that Rabbi Shimon does not darshen the word asher (albeit one in another pasuk). And their answer is that the meaning is that "asher" such as this Rabbi Shimon does not darshen. And that there are many such instances. For instance, in the first perek of Bechorot (6b), Rabbi Shimon darshens the et of et-hagamal, yet in the first perek of Menachot (11b) he does not darshen the word et.

Here is the obvious place to bring up Shimon HaAmsuni. In Pesachim 22b, after a discussion of whether certain Tannaim do or do not darshen the word et, we read:

As it was taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmmassoni, and some say that itwas Neḥemya HaAmmassoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word etin the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God; you shall serve Him; and to Him you shall cleave, and by His name you shall swear” (Deuteronomy 10:20), he withdrew from this method of exposition, as how could one add to God Himself? His students said to him: Rabbi, what will be with all the etim that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the interpretation, so I shall receive reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition. The word et in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God”: The word etcomes to include Torah scholars, and one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any case, Shimon HaAmmassoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.

This brayta pictures the system of interpretation of the object marker et to be an all-or-nothing endeavor. Either et is extra and must always be interpreted, or else it may never be interpreted. And the gemara (22b) writes ואידך את לא דריש, seeming to state that certain Tannaim subscribe to this system of derivation and other Tannaim do not. It should then be always or never.

Yet, according to Rabbenu Tam, an individual Tanna may sometimes interpret et and sometimes choose not to interpret it.

I can see a few resolutions to this, and think all of them may have a bit of truth to them.

* Rabbenu Tam's question is better than the answer. It is indeed a contradiction between what is attributed to Rabbi Shimon here and what is attributed to Rabbi Shimon there. This is because none if this is truly Rabbenu Tam. It is, rather, the Savoraim in the setama digemara who are attributing these positions to Rabbi Shimon. We must look for explicit derashot in Tannaitic sources to determine whether Rabbi Shimon really does, or does not, interpret asher or et.

Perhaps the assumption that the system of midrashhalacha may not reuse pesukim or words, or may not have unused pesukim or words, is deficient. That is, maybe the system is not so systematic and comprehensive. Maybe, for example, Rabbi Shimon (as an example Tanna) operated only locally, on individual pesukim, and did not get around to finding a law for every word, or did not agree that such was necessary. If so, then we do not have to play the game of the derasha chain.

Even if the one-to-one assumption is correct, we lack the explicit enumeration of such derashot. We have no real knowledge of what the derashot were, and are faced with the task of Reconstruction. Different Savoraim may have worked on different masechtot, and Savora A might have assumed X about Rabbi Shimon, while Savora B might have assumed NOT X about Rabbi Shimon.

* Systematic need not mean mechanical. As Tosafot wrote, one might say that a particularet or asher is superfluous, whilst another is not. The Tannaim has a sensitivity to language. It is not the case that every language usage is superfluous. Consider the word et. It is most often used as the marker that a noun is the object, rather than the subject, of the sentence. So, in Vayikra 1:5:

וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים, אֶת-הַדָּם

the word order is VSO, that is, Verb Subject Object. Shall Present / the sons of Aharon the priests / et-the blood. VSO is the usual word order. If the word et had not appeared, the meaning would still be fairly obvious. Not just because of the usual word order, but because the blood cannot very well present the sons of Aharon!

the word order is O(S)V, Hashem your God / (You) shall fear. The et is perhaps more grammatically necessarily, to prompt the reader that Hashem here is the direct object.

Depending on grammatical structure as well as local word usage -- how often is asher used in this parasha, in this sefer, in this topic? -- a word might or might not be deemed superfluous. Textual analysis is a science but also an art, and there is room for such sensitivities.

The answer to the question is then obvious. The point is to go through a whole bunch of different kinyanim, formal binding acquisitions. These differ depending on what it is being “acquired”. And so, it is appropriate to use the word נקנית or נקנה throughout. If we would use האשה מתקדשת, then we wouldn’t be able to carry through this language throughout the perek. Possibly we could continue it for yevama, but no further. We also couldn’t use the words וקונה את עצמה (or the equivalent by yevama or eved) as a simple flip of the expression.

The gemara, elsewhere, analyzes other bits of language. For instance, why not use נקנית in the second perek? Why use derachim. Be’ezrat Hashem, these questions are for follow-up posts.

Simon the Just17 said: In the whole of my
life, I ate of the guilt-offering of a defiled nazirite [only once].18 This man who came to me from the
South country, had beauteous eyes and handsome features with his locks heaped into curls. I asked
him: ‘Why, my son, didst thou resolve to destroy such wonderful hair?’ He answered: ‘In my native
town. I was my father's shepherd, and, on going down to draw water from the well, I used to gaze at
my reflection [in its waters]. Then my evil inclination assailed me, seeking to compass my ruin,19
and so I said to it, "Base wretch! Why dost thou plume thyself on a world that is not thine own, for
thy latter end is with worms and maggots. I swear20 I shall shear these locks to the glory of
Heaven!"’ Then I rose, and kissed him upon his head. and said to him: ‘Like unto thee, may there be
many nazirites in Israel. Of such as thou art, does the verse say, When a man shall clearly utter a
vow, the vow of a nazirite to consecrate himself unto the Lord.’21

Compare this with Narcissus, who was described by Ovid as follows, in Book 3 of Metamorphosis. Note in particular the third paragraph ("Flat on the ground"), which describes his eyes, handsome features, and hair fit for Bacchus or Apollo:

As Narcissus had scorned her, so he had scorned the other nymphs of the rivers and mountains, so he had scorned the companies of young men. Then one of those who had been mocked, lifting hands to the skies, said ‘So may he himself love, and so may he fail to command what he loves!’

There was an unclouded fountain, with silver-bright water, which neither shepherds nor goats grazing the hills, nor other flocks, touched, that no animal or bird disturbed not even a branch falling from a tree. Grass was around it, fed by the moisture nearby, and a grove of trees that prevented the sun from warming the place. Here, the boy, tired by the heat and his enthusiasm for the chase, lies down, drawn to it by its look and by the fountain. While he desires to quench his thirst, a different thirst is created. While he drinks he is seized by the vision of his reflected form. He loves a bodiless dream. He thinks that a body, which is only a shadow. He is astonished by himself, and hangs there motionless, with a fixed expression, like a statue carved from Parian marble.

Flat on the ground, he contemplates two stars, his eyes, and his hair, fit for Bacchus, fit for Apollo, his youthful cheeks and ivory neck, the beauty of his face, the rose-flush mingled in the whiteness of snow, admiring everything for which he is himself admired. Unknowingly he desires himself, and the one who praises is himself praised, and, while he courts, is courted, so that, equally, he inflames and burns. How often he gave his lips in vain to the deceptive pool, how often, trying to embrace the neck he could see, he plunged his arms into the water, but could not catch himself within them! What he has seen he does not understand, but what he sees he is on fire for, and the same error both seduces and deceives his eyes.

Fool, why try to catch a fleeting image, in vain? What you search for is nowhere: turning away, what you love is lost! What you perceive is the shadow of reflected form: nothing of you is in it. It comes and stays with you, and leaves with you, if you can leave!

The nazir realizes that this beauty and path would be his downfall - וביקש לטורדני מן העולם. Narcissus doesn't realize this and, unable to leave his reflection, drowns.

). That is, the resh is a quasi-guttural, which is why is doesn't take a dagesh chazak, and so the chet as a switch-off is close. And the resh is pronounced to the back, which is like the kuf. A psilos (a Greek word indicating someone who has difficulty pronouncing letters) would say nazik instead of nazir. As in Yerushalmi Nazir 1b :

"... Rabbi Yochanan says that they are leshon umot [the language of the nations] -- to explain, these three alternative languages [words] are of from the seventy languages [of the nations]. And if you say, according to Rabbi Yochanan, why specifically these three languages? In any of the seventy
languages as well, if he accepted nezirut upon himself with one of these leshonot, the nezirut would apply to him. And one might answer that indeed it is so, that in other languages as well, if he recognizes and understands them, and intends to accept upon himself nezirut, he is a nazir. But with these leshonot of the mishna, when he says his nazir-ship with one of these three leshonot, the nezirut applies to him even if he doesn't intend, because it is more similar to the language of the Torah than other leshonot.
And Resh Lakish argues there and says that it is a language which the Chachamim invented..."

It is difficult to accept Rabbi Yochanan's explanation of kinuyim, as explained by Tosafot. The Mishna and gemara in question in Nedarim reads as follows:

משנה

האומר (לחבירו): "קונם", "קונח", "קונס", הרי אלו כינויין לקרבן.

"חרק", "חרך", "חרף", הרי אלו כינויין לחרם.

"נזיק", "נזיח", "פזיח", הרי אלו כינויין לנזירות.

"שבותה", "שקוקה", נודר במוהי, הרי אלו כינויין לשבועה:

גמרא

(a) These kinuyin are just so similar, in three or four categories, to their Hebrew equivalents. Perhaps we are talking about close Semitic languages, but I'd like to be able to identify the languages in question.
(b) Why would other languages have a word for Nazir, which is entirely a Biblical creation, with its own unique Biblical law?

I'd rather see this dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish as:

Rabbi Yochanan: these wordings being organic, natural linguistic development by the people.
Resh Lakish: these wordings being jargon deliberately fabricated by Chazal.

How can leshon umot mean this? I would suggest that it is not leshon umot with a shuruk, but leshon omot with a cholam.

Look in Jastrow, page 27:

It is an "oath language". And in context, as a kinuy language for vows, oaths, charamim, and nezirut, it seems applicable. Sometimes people swap out words for similar words when making vows, because of the severity of it. Think e.g. Gosh instead of God.

Note how Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shela both say ביררו, whose, rather than בדו, invented. One seems like the slip of the pen of the other.

Also, Rabbi Yochanan indicates that Rishonim [earlier generations] chose them, rather than this being the language of the Umot [nations]. And this is perhaps in contrast to the the language of the Mishnayot, as put forth by Rabbi Shela, and which might correspond to the position of Resh Lakish.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

The Rishonim already point out that the leshonos of the gemara in maseches Nazir are different from the leshonos of gemaras throughout the rest of Shas. That there are a lot of places in Nazir where things seem to be abbreviated; they seem to be formulated differently that they are in the rest of Shas; and it seems to be that the reason is that in the time of the Geonim, they didn't learn maseches Nazir in yeshivos, and any sefer that wasn't learned that much, a lot of mistakes crept in because there wasn't that much learning of it going on, where they were able to correct the mistakes. You'll find a lot of girsaos that were changed, nuschaos there were changed, by some of the later Acharonim, because it wasn't really taken care of in the earlier generations, since maseches Nazir wasn't really learned so much.

In fact, in the Tiferes Yisrael, in Pirkei Avos, in the second perek of Pirkei Avos, he writes, ודרך אפשר, that it could be that Rav Ashi, when he was mesader the Talmud, didn't get to produce a Mahadura Shniyah [second, revised edition] of Maseches Nazir, that for each of the other masechtas, he wrote a Mahadura Kamma, a first edition, and then he corrected it and made a Mahadura Shniyah. Maseches Nazir, what he have, is a Mahadura Kamma. This is what Shas would have looked like if Rav Ashi didn't have the time to review all the other masechtos. That is what the Tiferes Yisrael suggests, at least as a ודרך אפש.

The first paragraph indicates, from Rishonim, that there was general Geonim input into our masechtos, something less present or absent in Nazir, which accounts for the difference in style. Is this just entropy -- errors that crept in during the copying process that were not corrected? What then with the abbreviations, or different formulations? The Tiferes Yisrael, meanwhile, seems to be suggesting that there was less of a work-over by the Setama DeGemara, but since he assumes an entire closing of the Talmudic canon [chasimas haTalmud] by Ravina and Rav Ashi, he puts this as a lack of a Mahadura Shniya.

Another way of looking at it (though I don't know what they say particularly about Nazir) is as many modern academic scholars say, that the editing of Talmud, in terms of expansive or simplifying language, or even whole sections of Setama DeGamara, extended into the times of the Geonim. If so, lack of Savoraic and Geonic attention to the masechta, or focus of different Savoraim and Geonim, could lead to a very different style.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Shabbat daf 55 has a lengthy exposition of the tav set on people's foreheads, as described in sefer Yechezkel:

R. Zera said to R. Simeon, Let the Master rebuke the members of the Resh Galutha's suite. They will not accept it from me, was his reply. Though they will not accept its returned he, yet you should rebuke them. For R. Aha b. R. Hanina said: Never did a favourable word7 go forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, of which He retracted for evil, save the following, where it is written, And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [taw] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof, etc.8 The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel,9 Go and set a taw10 of ink upon the foreheads of the righteous, that the destroying angels may have no power over them; and a taw of blood upon the foreheads of the wicked, that the destroying angels may have power over them. Said the Attribute of Justice11 before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Wherein are these different from those?' 'Those are completely righteous men, while these are completely wicked,' replied He. 'Sovereign of the Universe!' it continued, 'they had the power to protest but did not.' 'It was fully known12 to them that had they protested they would not have heeded them.'13 'Sovereign of the Universe!' said he, 'If it was revealed to Thee, was it revealed to them?' Hence it is written, [Slay utterly] the old man, the young and the maiden, and little children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my Sanctuary [mikdashi]. Then they began at the elders which were before the house.14 R. Joseph recited: Read not mikdashi but mekuddashay [my sanctified ones]: this refers to the people who fulfilled the Torah from alef to taw.15 And straightway, And behold, six men came from the way of the upper gate, which lieth toward the north, every man with his slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man in the midst of them clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side. And they went in, and stood beside the brazen altar.16 Was then the brazen altar [still] in existence?17 — The Holy One, blessed be He, spake thus to them; Commence [destruction] from the place where song is uttered before Me.18 And who were the six men? — Said R. Hisda: Indignation [Kezef], Anger [Af], Wrath [Hemah], Destroyer [Mashhith] Breaker [Meshabber] and Annihilator [Mekaleh]. And why taw? — Said Rab: Taw [stands for] tihyeh [thou shalt live], taw [stands for] tamuth [thou shalt die]. Samuel said: The taw denotes, the merit of the Patriarchs is exhausted [tamah].19 R. Johanan said: The merit of the Patriarchs will confer grace [tahon].20 While Resh Lakish said: Taw is the end of the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He. For R. Hanina said: The seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is emeth [truth]. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: It denotes the people who fulfilled the Torah from alef to taw.21

Apropos Missisipi Fred Macdowell's question whether there is any value of non-academic types knowing Ktav Ivri (Paleo-Hebrew), I would say yes. The more familiar one is with realia, the better one can understand gemara and Tanach as it was intended.

There is a discussion of how in the Ten Commandments, engraved through and through on two tablets, the samach and mem sofit were miraculous, in that the middle portion had to have floated (Shabbat 104a and Megilla 2b-3a). How to understand the Yerushalmi that has instead "ayin and tes?" You need to know Ktav Ivri (in which these two letters are circular - the ayin looks like a samach, and the tes looks like an X inside an O, in what seems a modification of the letter tav) - to really understand this - and it is clear that Chazal knew Ktav Ivri.

Also, to understand Yechezkel 9:4 and 9:6 about the "mark," the "tav" made on people's foreheads. Does this mean a random mark? Does this mean something that looks like the Ktav Ashuri ת? It makes a lot more sense when you know the Ktav Ivri Tav looks like an X.

You never know when arcane knowledge can be useful.

I would suspect, given the Yerushalmi, that the Babylonian Amoraim in our gemara were also familiar with the Paleo-Hebrew tav, such that the mark made on the forehead was either simply a mark, or an X. In which case they understood their own remarks to be midrash.

It is always useful to understand peshat in the pesukim alongside the midrashic explanation.